DC earthquake shuts down nuclear power plant

  • Published on August 23rd, 2011

simpsons nuclear reactor

How safe are American nuclear power plants?

The good news is: during today’s 5.8 quake between Richmond VA and Washington DC, the nearby North Anna nuclear plant shut down as it was designed to do.

The bad news: The plant was only designed to withstand up to a 6.2. So we came pretty damn close. And why did we build yet another reactor on an earthquake fault line?

“It was uncomfortably close to design basis,” said Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If Fukushima wasn’t a wake-up call, this really needs to be to get the NRC and industry moving to do seismic reviews of all the nuclear power plants in the country.”

While quakes happen less often on the East Coast quakes than on the Pacific rim,  this is a reminder that they DO happen. The worst one was a 7.3 magnitude quake that hit South Carolina in 1886.

According to a Reuters’ report:

The plant lost power and automatically halted operations after the quake. While a Dominion spokesman reported no “major” damage to the facility, three diesel generators were required to kick in and keep the reactors’ radioactive cores cool. A fourth diesel unit failed.

Well that’s reassuring. Only one of the backup units failed! Reminder: the reason the Fukushima plant went into meltdown – and beyond – was because the backup generators failed.

Nuclear Free Virginia did a little background research on this plant back in March, and noted:

  • In a lawsuit attempting to block the third reactor on the site, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League alleged that the company which built the plant covered up evidence of the fault back in the 1970s, then applied for a variance because once that information got out the plant could no longer meet safety standards.
  • Regardless of what was known at the time, the only reason the plant was approved was that a twelve-day hearing determined that the fault was “not capable of producing a major earthquake”, and therefor ” the site was as stable as one without a fault and therefore it was determined that the presence of the fault did not require changes in design specifications.”

Oops. I guess all the power company’s experts were wrong. Please note: This is not meant to be snotty. Okay, it is.

But my point is: These are the guys how say “Even though you have misgivings, and even though if we are wrong things could be disastrous, you just have to trust us because we’re not wrong, really. We promise.” And then when it turns out they ARE wrong, they shrug it off and say “Well, nobody’s perfect…. but you STILL have to trust us THIS TIME.”

And now that there HAS been a major earthquake, does that mean they will be shutting down those plants? Of course not. Even though they were built on a fault based on the idea that they weren’t REALLY built on a fault.

And Dominion power has applied to operate yet another plant on the site.

(Springfield nuclear power plant picture c Fox Television)

 

About the Author

Jeremy Bloom is the Editor of RedGreenAndBlue. He lives in New York, where he combines his passion for the environment with his passion for film, and is working on making the world a better place.

8 comments

  • So how many people have dropped dead of radiation in fukushima? Ohh that’s right, none. Babies being delivered today that were forming in the womb during the disaster have no increase in birth defects. More folks have died from not having power in japan than all the nuclear power accidents combined. The results are in front of the green crowd, but the don’t want to hear it. Green energy from solar and wind might be fine to power a lampost or a log cabin out in the cut, but it’s never going to be reliable enough to power major cities or our future fleet of electric cars. It’s time for green energy folks to embrace nuclear power and encourage advancements in the space. Nuclear power could end big oil and all the wars that it spawns. Fukushima’s radioactive death toll is the cowbell to hang our hat on. Btw no signs of birth defects e

  • So a 6.2 is pretty damn close to a 5.8? Maybe on a linear scale (5.8 is within 7% of 6.2), but the Richter scale is not linear. An earthquake of 6.0 is TWELVE TIMES STRONGER than a 5.0, so a 6.2 is FOUR TIMES STRONGER than a 5.8. That’s like saying being being 4 times greener than someone else is being pretty damn close to being only just as green as the other guy.

  • Correction: At Fukushima, the diesel generators didn’t “fail”. The generators were working until they were swamped by the tsunami and the fuel tanks were washed away in the flooding.

  • I’d assume someone would perform at least a simple 10-second google search before touting misinformation onto a blog such as this. While I agree with your concerns, your approach is majorly flawed – as is your information. The nearest fault LINE is in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, and in fact the plant sits directly on the center of the PLATE, not the fault line; usually the MOST stable region seismically. I won’t do your research for you – but look at USGS’ map for seismic risk / activity and you’ll find Virginia in the second-to-least active zone in the country.

    My concerns with the quake revolve around the fact that it was so random and surprising to those in the relevant scientific fields. I’d say building a plant here showed negligence if quakes were a concern, but a M5.8 over 100 years ago with a different epicenter (the historical “worst” case scenario that this plant was built under) is certainly not considered high-risk. In fact, I’d imagine that would rule out nearly every state in the USA as being suitable for nuclear energy.

    If anything, it’s impressive to know that a nuclear plant designed around the requirements of a (relatively speaking) quiet seismic area built 25 years ago, can withstand a 100-year quake as ground-zero.

Comments are closed.